It's July, but there's a chill in the air

It’s all about free speech. But for whom?

- MARTIN REGG COHN

Pro-Palestinian protesters ended their encampment at the University of Toronto this week after an Ontario court granted the university an injunction. The protesters may be gone, but that won’t end their chilling effect on free speech, Martin Regg Cohn writes.

For those who oppose Israel, yes. For those who support or come from Israel, not so much.

On campus, protesters demand an untrammeled right to trespass, occupy and speechify. But it’s seemingly a right reserved only for them, as pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist protesters — not their opponents.

Think about that one-sided argument. All along, many protesters have tried to restrict the rights of their opponents — other students and professors — to speak or exchange ideas.

Now, time’s up for the campus occupation. But speech suppression will continue on campus in other ways.

Two months after pitching their tents at the University of Toronto, protesters were ordered to pack up this week by a judge who ruled their occupation illegal. In granting the university’s request for an injunction, the court pointed out a peculiar contradiction plaguing the movement:

While the protesters continually claimed a right to free speech, they adamantly refused any reciprocal right of free assembly — even a right of entry — to anyone opposing their encampment on the university’s main grounds. Free speech for me, no speech for you.

Turns out that the protesters were turning logic and the law upside down — not merely trespassing, but trampling on the rights of others on U of T grounds. That’s why the court cleared the way for police to clear them out if they refused to fold their tents.